Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Battery Tender performance

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Battery Tender performance

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 1:38 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered

 the plots at:  http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha  and  http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy 



 A more recent plot I published a few days ago for my Battery Tender

 Jr. had a recharge curve for 12 a.h. battery that looked like this:



 

 [img]cid:.0[/img]



 

    Not much of a  top-off cycle. No absorption dwell . . .



    So I ran some new plots on Ron's 12 a.h. batteries and my

    10 year-old Battery Tender.  Here's what I got.



 



 

 [img]cid:.1[/img]



   These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries 'charged' with

   the Battery Tender really get topped off.  Two cycles of Battery Tender

   only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle was

   augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about 150 mA

   at 14.5 volts.



   The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more service

   at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.



   I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.

   Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge

   cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders

   and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any

   size.



   Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under

   study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's total

   capacity back in storage. 



   I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family

   of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple

   of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old

   and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said

   that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for

   service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer

   products are best used to store batteries that are fully

   charged when put away.



   The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets

   here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well

   be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there

   for a top-off charger-maintainer.



 

   Bob . . .

24220e19.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

60.15 KB

Viewed:

4062 Time(s)

24220e67.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

192.73 KB

Viewed:

4062 Time(s)

raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:30 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

Bob,



Sorry if I missed it, but could you define tender vs maintainer vs smart 

charger vs old style charger in terms of expected charge profiles for 

typical batteries used in OBAM aircraft.



do not archive



Thanks,



Raymond Julian

On 09/04/2012 04:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

snip



 	  Quote: 	
		  

    I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.

    Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge

    cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders

    and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any

    size.

rparigoris

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 796

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

Hi Bob 

 	Thx. for taking the time and effort to share your findings. 

 	Again the batteries I was referring to were abused and discharged repeatedly below 12.4 volts. 

 	It would be interesting to see the results you achieve if you use the chargers I sent you. They are 500mA constant current chargers that do nothing more than turn off ~ 15.4 volts, but that allows a reasonable dwell above the 13.7 float voltage. 

 	Ron Parigoris 

 	  

 	     [quote][b]

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 5:21 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

Bob, your previous posts on this topic       of using a "Battery Tender" as a "charger" was the key to helping       me unravel a set of problems I was having with my Odyssey 680s.        Just wanted to say thanks and to share my experience if others may       find it useful.

       

       I have a Z-14 with 2 680s.  Very early in my build I bought 2 680s       (which really weren't needed at the time) to ease design of the       battery box but they were actually used very little.  They were       charged a few times and occasionally maintained (hooked up       overnight even though they had not been discharged)  with the       brand name "Battery Tender".  A few years later when I was 90%       done with 90% to go, I decided to get fresh batteries (not quite       at the same time and these weren't needed at the time either).        These batteries were used quite a bit in panel testing and such.        These were also charged and maintained with the battery tender       (many cycles).

        

       When I finally got to first flight, I found that neither of the       new batteries would turn over the IO540 on my RV10.  When both       batteries were cross fed, no problem but alone, neither battery       could quite turn the cold engine over.  Per Bob's posts, I       suspected that use of the "Tender"  was my problem.  A trip to       Walmart turned up a suitable charger with settings for Gel vs Lead       vs (glass mat?).  One charge and now one of the new batteries was       a tiger and the other got a lot better.  

       

       The way I intended to use my 2 batteries was to normally use one       to power the EFISs and most of the rest of the avionics.  The       other was for starting.  After start, the batteries would be cross       fed.  This now worked but my avionics panel would start to go dim       after 5 minutes or so unless the engine was started and the       alternators were online.  I was hoping for more.

       

       After much data collection, a carbon pile tester, and some       additional field experience it turned out that the batteries I       bought some 4 or 5 years ago were still in great shape once       charged with the new charger.  Furthermore, 1 of the new batteries       seemed ruined in the sense that the other 3 batteries consistently       outperformed it and I found it unsuitable for either position in       the aircraft.

       

       It appeared that repeated discharge and  charge with only the       Battery Tender permanently  reduced the capacity of 1 of my new       batteries.  It also appeared that 4 or 5 years of aging on the       shelf in a more or less fully charged state was not as bad as       repeated use and undercharging with a Battery Tender/maintainer.        

       

       Further reinforcing these observations, at my first condition       inspection I decided to swap in the better of my 2 newer       batteries.  for the first year, I had been flying with my 2 older       batteries.  Thought my carbon pile tester had bellied up, I found       that my 2 older batteries and one of my new batteries all had the       same voltage when fully charged with no load.    When I swapped       out my oldest battery for my best new battery it turns out it       didn't perform quite as well (the engine would not always turn       over on it).  I went back to the 2 older batteries and everything       works as intended.

       

       I've since set aside the battery tender knowing that if I have a       charged battery on the shelf, I could probably use it to maintain       the full charge.  But the Walmart charger is my main charging       tool.  Now that I'm flying regularly there is little need for       charging and my Z-14 is performing exactly as desired (though I       haven't had any kind of electrical component failure to test its       failure tolerance).  I'm quite confident behind my 100% electrical       panel in IFR operations.

       

       (I do have 2 mags which are refreshingly retro in this       microprocessor world - they are electromagnetic mechanical       wonders!)

       

       Thanks again Bob,

       Bill Watson

       N215TG

       

       On 9/4/2012 5:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

     

     [quote]       I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered

       the plots at:                http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha  and                http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy 

       

         These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries       'charged'       with

         the Battery Tender really get topped off.  Two cycles of       Battery Tender

         only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle       was

         augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about       150       mA

         at 14.5 volts.

       

         The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more       service

         at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.

       

         I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.

         Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some       charge/discharge

         cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the       Minders

         and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any

         size.

       

         Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under

         study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's       total

         capacity back in storage. 

       

         I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family

         of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple

         of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old

         and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said

         that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for

         service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer

         products are best used to store batteries that are fully

         charged when put away.

       

         The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets

         here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well

         be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there

         for a top-off charger-maintainer.

       

                

             Bob . . .                  

No virus           found in this message.

           Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

           Date: 09/04/12       [b]

email(at)jaredyates.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:00 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

Bill, next time you are out at the hangar and think about it, could

you see what the manufacturer and model are of your successful Walmart

charger?



On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   Bob, your previous posts on this topic of using a "Battery Tender" as a

 "charger" was the key to helping me unravel a set of problems I was having

 with my Odyssey 680s.  Just wanted to say thanks and to share my experience

 if others may find it useful.



 I have a Z-14 with 2 680s.  Very early in my build I bought 2 680s (which

 really weren't needed at the time) to ease design of the battery box but

 they were actually used very little.  They were charged a few times and

 occasionally maintained (hooked up overnight even though they had not been

 discharged)  with the brand name "Battery Tender".  A few years later when I

 was 90% done with 90% to go, I decided to get fresh batteries (not quite at

 the same time and these weren't needed at the time either).  These batteries

 were used quite a bit in panel testing and such.  These were also charged

 and maintained with the battery tender (many cycles).



 When I finally got to first flight, I found that neither of the new

 batteries would turn over the IO540 on my RV10.  When both batteries were

 cross fed, no problem but alone, neither battery could quite turn the cold

 engine over.  Per Bob's posts, I suspected that use of the "Tender"  was my

 problem.  A trip to Walmart turned up a suitable charger with settings for

 Gel vs Lead vs (glass mat?).  One charge and now one of the new batteries

 was a tiger and the other got a lot better.



 The way I intended to use my 2 batteries was to normally use one to power

 the EFISs and most of the rest of the avionics.  The other was for starting.

 After start, the batteries would be cross fed.  This now worked but my

 avionics panel would start to go dim after 5 minutes or so unless the engine

 was started and the alternators were online.  I was hoping for more.



 After much data collection, a carbon pile tester, and some additional field

 experience it turned out that the batteries I bought some 4 or 5 years ago

 were still in great shape once charged with the new charger.  Furthermore, 1

 of the new batteries seemed ruined in the sense that the other 3 batteries

 consistently outperformed it and I found it unsuitable for either position

 in the aircraft.



 It appeared that repeated discharge and  charge with only the Battery Tender

 permanently  reduced the capacity of 1 of my new batteries.  It also

 appeared that 4 or 5 years of aging on the shelf in a more or less fully

 charged state was not as bad as repeated use and undercharging with a

 Battery Tender/maintainer.



 Further reinforcing these observations, at my first condition inspection I

 decided to swap in the better of my 2 newer batteries.  for the first year,

 I had been flying with my 2 older batteries.  Thought my carbon pile tester

 had bellied up, I found that my 2 older batteries and one of my new

 batteries all had the same voltage when fully charged with no load.    When

 I swapped out my oldest battery for my best new battery it turns out it

 didn't perform quite as well (the engine would not always turn over on it).

 I went back to the 2 older batteries and everything works as intended.



 I've since set aside the battery tender knowing that if I have a charged

 battery on the shelf, I could probably use it to maintain the full charge.

 But the Walmart charger is my main charging tool.  Now that I'm flying

 regularly there is little need for charging and my Z-14 is performing

 exactly as desired (though I haven't had any kind of electrical component

 failure to test its failure tolerance).  I'm quite confident behind my 100%

 electrical panel in IFR operations.



 (I do have 2 mags which are refreshingly retro in this microprocessor world

 - they are electromagnetic mechanical wonders!)



 Thanks again Bob,

 Bill Watson

 N215TG



 On 9/4/2012 5:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:



 I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered

 the plots at: http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha  and http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy



   These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries 'charged' with

   the Battery Tender really get topped off.  Two cycles of Battery Tender

   only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle was

   augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about 150 mA

   at 14.5 volts.



   The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more service

   at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.



   I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.

   Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge

   cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders

   and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any

   size.



   Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under

   study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's total

   capacity back in storage.



   I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family

   of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple

   of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old

   and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said

   that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for

   service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer

   products are best used to store batteries that are fully

   charged when put away.



   The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets

   here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well

   be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there

   for a top-off charger-maintainer.



   Bob . . .



 No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

 Date: 09/04/12

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:19 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

Yep, will do tomorrow.



Bill

On 9/4/2012 10:00 PM, Jared Yates wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Bill, next time you are out at the hangar and think about it, could

 you see what the manufacturer and model are of your successful Walmart

 charger?



 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Bob, your previous posts on this topic of using a "Battery Tender" as a

> "charger" was the key to helping me unravel a set of problems I was having

> with my Odyssey 680s.  Just wanted to say thanks and to share my experience

> if others may find it useful.

>

> I have a Z-14 with 2 680s.  Very early in my build I bought 2 680s (which

> really weren't needed at the time) to ease design of the battery box but

> they were actually used very little.  They were charged a few times and

> occasionally maintained (hooked up overnight even though they had not been

> discharged)  with the brand name "Battery Tender".  A few years later when I

> was 90% done with 90% to go, I decided to get fresh batteries (not quite at

> the same time and these weren't needed at the time either).  These batteries

> were used quite a bit in panel testing and such.  These were also charged

> and maintained with the battery tender (many cycles).

>

> When I finally got to first flight, I found that neither of the new

> batteries would turn over the IO540 on my RV10.  When both batteries were

> cross fed, no problem but alone, neither battery could quite turn the cold

> engine over.  Per Bob's posts, I suspected that use of the "Tender"  was my

> problem.  A trip to Walmart turned up a suitable charger with settings for

> Gel vs Lead vs (glass mat?).  One charge and now one of the new batteries

> was a tiger and the other got a lot better.

>

> The way I intended to use my 2 batteries was to normally use one to power

> the EFISs and most of the rest of the avionics.  The other was for starting.

> After start, the batteries would be cross fed.  This now worked but my

> avionics panel would start to go dim after 5 minutes or so unless the engine

> was started and the alternators were online.  I was hoping for more.

>

> After much data collection, a carbon pile tester, and some additional field

> experience it turned out that the batteries I bought some 4 or 5 years ago

> were still in great shape once charged with the new charger.  Furthermore, 1

> of the new batteries seemed ruined in the sense that the other 3 batteries

> consistently outperformed it and I found it unsuitable for either position

> in the aircraft.

>

> It appeared that repeated discharge and  charge with only the Battery Tender

> permanently  reduced the capacity of 1 of my new batteries.  It also

> appeared that 4 or 5 years of aging on the shelf in a more or less fully

> charged state was not as bad as repeated use and undercharging with a

> Battery Tender/maintainer.

>

> Further reinforcing these observations, at my first condition inspection I

> decided to swap in the better of my 2 newer batteries.  for the first year,

> I had been flying with my 2 older batteries.  Thought my carbon pile tester

> had bellied up, I found that my 2 older batteries and one of my new

> batteries all had the same voltage when fully charged with no load.    When

> I swapped out my oldest battery for my best new battery it turns out it

> didn't perform quite as well (the engine would not always turn over on it).

> I went back to the 2 older batteries and everything works as intended.

>

> I've since set aside the battery tender knowing that if I have a charged

> battery on the shelf, I could probably use it to maintain the full charge.

> But the Walmart charger is my main charging tool.  Now that I'm flying

> regularly there is little need for charging and my Z-14 is performing

> exactly as desired (though I haven't had any kind of electrical component

> failure to test its failure tolerance).  I'm quite confident behind my 100%

> electrical panel in IFR operations.

>

> (I do have 2 mags which are refreshingly retro in this microprocessor world

> - they are electromagnetic mechanical wonders!)

>

> Thanks again Bob,

> Bill Watson

> N215TG

>

> On 9/4/2012 5:36 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

>

> I have known this for some time (since the time I gathered

> the plots at: http://tinyurl.com/8o65jha  and http://tinyurl.com/9paguuy

>

>    These plots confirm the question as to whether batteries 'charged' with

>    the Battery Tender really get topped off.  Two cycles of Battery Tender

>    only recharge produced the red and green plots. A third cycle was

>    augmented with a 3 hour top-off which was still drawing about 150 mA

>    at 14.5 volts.

>

>    The third, topped off cycle stored about 60 minutes more service

>    at a 1.2A rate than for the un-augmented cycles.

>

>    I've given away all my SEC1562 chargers to family members.

>    Got a new one ordered yesterday. I'll run some charge/discharge

>    cycles on the same battery. I think we'll find that the Minders

>    and Tenders are not designed to top off SVLA batteries of any

>    size.

>

>    Does that mean they're 'bad' chargers? No, in instance under

>    study the Battery Tender still put ~90% of the battery's total

>    capacity back in storage.

>

>    I've used the Battery Tender to charge and maintain a family

>    of instrumentation batteries for years. I retired a couple

>    of test batteries last year that were over 10 years old

>    and tested to better than 75% of new. So it MIGHT be said

>    that cycling a battery less aggressively is good for

>    service life . . . but for sure, the battery maintainer

>    products are best used to store batteries that are fully

>    charged when put away.

>

>    The next chapter will be written when the new 1562 gets

>    here. Given the very reasonable price ($20) it may well

>    be that the SEC1562A is about the best value out there

>    for a top-off charger-maintainer.

>

>    Bob . . .

>

> No virus found in this message.

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> Date: 09/04/12

>



 -----

 No virus found in this message.

 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 7:39 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

At 06:30 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  Hi Bob



Thx. for taking the time and effort to share your findings.



Again the batteries I was referring to were abused and discharged 

repeatedly below 12.4 volts.


	


   Will they accept a charge at all? If so, the only thing

   I'm aware of that might recover them to some degree is

   a couple of deep discharge/charge cycles. Concord suggests

   you can put a LOT of volts on a battery that won't accept

   any charge until it's recharge current rises above some

   nominal value . . . I think it was a couple amps.



   Then proceed with two or three deep cycles and measure

   capacity on last cycle. If not 'recovered' to flight-worthy

   levels, then the battery is 'trash'. That's about 80% of

   new. Of course, you can settle for less.



 	  Quote: 	
		  It would be interesting to see the results you achieve if you use 

the chargers I sent you. They are 500mA constant current chargers 

that do nothing more than turn off ~ 15.4 volts, but that allows a 

reasonable dwell above the 13.7 float voltage.


	


   The battery maintenance devices did too but they

   turned off sooner. I don't know if I've still got

   them around. I had no interest in using them.

   I'll see what I can find.

   Bob . . .

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 8:00 pm Post subject: Battery Tender performance

At 06:28 PM 9/4/2012, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>



 Bob,



 Sorry if I missed it, but could you define tender vs maintainer vs smart charger vs old style charger in terms of expected charge profiles for typical batteries used in OBAM aircraft. 	


   Legacy chargers did not change much in terms of

   utility beginning with devices like this:



   



   I owned one of these things about 1955. It was stronger

   than a 'trickle charger' . . . about 3A as I recall

   and would recharge a dead battery overnight. But it had

   ZERO controls. It was a constant current charger that

   would boil a battery dry if left on after the battery

   achieved full charge.



   Modern incarnations of this philosophy are much

   more robust. Will crank an engine and certainly 

   charged a battery much faster. They might even include

   a clock-works timer to shut the thing off after some

   period of time to prevent severe overcharging. Here's

   some examples of robust 'manually controlled' chargers . . .



  http://tinyurl.com/cljbyur

  http://tinyurl.com/cd437g2



   The advent of microelectronics prompted more sophisticated

   charger designs that fall into two classes. Charger/maintainers

   like this series of microprocessor controlled devices.

   Where operator intervention was not needed to prevent

   overcharging. These generally include microprocessor controls

   programmed to conduct a good approximation of the ideal

   recharge protocol



  http://tinyurl.com/9s7kpww



   for constant current bulk charge, constant voltage

   dwell for absorption cycle, followed by a drop to

   some value just above open circuit voltage to

   offset the battery's internal losses . . .i.e.

   'maintain' it forever. These are the current

   crop of smart chargers.



   Then we come to "maintainers" . . . constant

   current charge to some endpoint generally above

   14.0 volts followed by a drop to maintenance

   level of just over 13.0 volts. Products like 

   Battery Tender



   



   Battery Minder are typical "wall warts" that will

   charge a battery to just short of full before

   they drop to the maintenance mode.



   The two products I'm comparing for performance are

   the Battery Tender and an SEM1562A Schumacher

   charger/maintainer (as soon as it gets here).



   Bottom line is that all three classes of charger

   are readily available today. The manual devices

   can be quite robust but will cook a battery if

   used improperly. The charger/maintainers are automatic

   and represent a relatively goof-proof way to charge

   a battery and store it. The maintainers will also

   charge albeit to less than 100% of battery's rated

   capacity but they too will maintain the battery

   nicely while being stored.



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:37 am Post subject: Battery Tender performance

The charger from Walmart is a Shumacher:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60509998/DSC04046.JPG

There were several models but this one seemed to be the right one for my 

Odyssey 680s



Here is a blurry shot of my Battery Tender Plus:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60509998/DSC04048.JPG



Bill



On 9/4/2012 10:00 PM, Jared Yates wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Bill, next time you are out at the hangar and think about it, could

 you see what the manufacturer and model are of your successful Walmart

 charger?



 On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Bob, your previous posts on this topic of using a "Battery Tender" as a

> "charger" was the key to helping me unravel a set of problems I was having

> with my Odyssey 680s.  Just wanted to say thanks and to share my experience

> if others may find it useful.

>

> I have a Z-14 with 2 680s.  Very early in my build I bought 2 680s (which

> really weren't needed at the time) to ease design of the battery box but

> they were actually used very little.  They were charged a few times and

> occasionally maintained (hooked up overnight even though they had not been

> discharged)  with the brand name "Battery Tender".  A few years later when I

> was 90% done with 90% to go, I decided to get fresh batteries (not quite at

> the same time and these weren't needed at the time either).  These batteries

> were used quite a bit in panel testing and such.  These were also charged

> and maintained with the battery tender (many cycles).

>

> When I finally got to first flight, I found that neither of the new

> batteries would turn over the IO540 on my RV10.  When both batteries were

> cross fed, no problem but alone, neither battery could quite turn the cold

> engine over.  Per Bob's posts, I suspected that use of the "Tender"  was my

> problem.  A trip to Walmart turned up a suitable charger with settings for

> Gel vs Lead vs (glass mat?).  One charge and now one of the new batteries

> was a tiger and the other got a lot better.

>

> The way I intended to use my 2 batteries was to normally use one to power

> the EFISs and most of the rest of the avionics.  The other was for starting.

> After start, the batteries would be cross fed.  This now worked but my

> avionics panel would start to go dim after 5 minutes or so unless the engine

> was started and the alternators were online.  I was hoping for more.

>

> After much data collection, a carbon pile tester, and some additional field

> experience it turned out that the batteries I bought some 4 or 5 years ago

> were still in great shape once charged with the new charger.  Furthermore, 1

> of the new batteries seemed ruined in the sense that the other 3 batteries

> consistently outperformed it and I found it unsuitable for either position

> in the aircraft.

>

> It appeared that repeated discharge and  charge with only the Battery Tender

> permanently  reduced the capacity of 1 of my new batteries.  It also

> appeared that 4 or 5 years of aging on the shelf in a more or less fully

> charged state was not as bad as repeated use and undercharging with a

> Battery Tender/maintainer.

>

> Further reinforcing these observations, at my first condition inspection I

> decided to swap in the better of my 2 newer batteries.  for the first year,

> I had been flying with my 2 older batteries.  Thought my carbon pile tester

> had bellied up, I found that my 2 older batteries and one of my new

> batteries all had the same voltage when fully charged with no load.    When

> I swapped out my oldest battery for my best new battery it turns out it

> didn't perform quite as well (the engine would not always turn over on it).

> I went back to the 2 older batteries and everything works as intended.

>

> I've since set aside the battery tender knowing that if I have a charged

> battery on the shelf, I could probably use it to maintain the full charge.

> But the Walmart charger is my main charging tool.  Now that I'm flying

> regularly there is little need for charging and my Z-14 is performing

> exactly as desired (though I haven't had any kind of electrical component

> failure to test its failure tolerance).  I'm quite confident behind my 100%

> electrical panel in IFR operations.

>

> (I do have 2 mags which are refreshingly retro in this microprocessor world

> - they are electromagnetic mechanical wonders!)

>

> Thanks again Bob,

> Bill Watson

> N215TG

>

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:47 am Post subject: Battery Tender performance

At 11:36 AM 9/5/2012, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



The charger from Walmart is a Shumacher:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60509998/DSC04046.JPG

There were several models but this one seemed to be the right one 

for my Odyssey 680s


	


    This is a very capable charger . . . and probably

    appropriate to a program where batteries are

    deeply discharged and then recharged such as

    trolling motors, mobility carts, etc. If

    one has the occasional need to put a 'fast'

    charge on a car or rv battery, something with

    this capability will cover more 'battery bases'

    and the price is right . . . about $40.



    If one wishes to do a simple top off and maintenance

    on a battery on a hangared airplane, then

    time-to-recharge is not an issue. Then a product

    like the SEM1562A



http://tinyurl.com/25q3532



    might be a better choice. For the same dollars,

    one can have two such devices doing the guardian

    angel thing over batteries in different

    locations.



    Don't wrapped around the 'features axle' for

    chargers with lots of lights and buttons unless

    you need to maximize battery life for devices

    in deep-discharge service. Protocols finely

    tuned to battery technology are not all that

    different from each other. Further, 99 times

    out of 100, you're putting an airplane away

    with a fully charged battery. Ideally, the

    battery in your airplane NEVER gets a deep

    discharge cycle and will last a very long

    time.



   Bob . . .

Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:24 am Post subject: Battery Tender performance

Makes a lot of sense.



In fact, I think that was the charger you were recommending at the time 

I was asking.  Impatiently, I went to my local Walmart and picked the 

best thing I could find on the shelf that day.



Thanks,

Bill

do not archive



On 9/6/2012 9:46 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>



 At 11:36 AM 9/5/2012, you wrote:

> 

> <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com>

>

> The charger from Walmart is a Shumacher:

> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/60509998/DSC04046.JPG

> There were several models but this one seemed to be the right one for 

> my Odyssey 680s



    This is a very capable charger . . . and probably

    appropriate to a program where batteries are

    deeply discharged and then recharged such as

    trolling motors, mobility carts, etc. If

    one has the occasional need to put a 'fast'

    charge on a car or rv battery, something with

    this capability will cover more 'battery bases'

    and the price is right . . . about $40.



    If one wishes to do a simple top off and maintenance

    on a battery on a hangared airplane, then

    time-to-recharge is not an issue. Then a product

    like the SEM1562A



 http://tinyurl.com/25q3532



    might be a better choice. For the same dollars,

    one can have two such devices doing the guardian

    angel thing over batteries in different

    locations.



    Don't wrapped around the 'features axle' for

    chargers with lots of lights and buttons unless

    you need to maximize battery life for devices

    in deep-discharge service. Protocols finely

    tuned to battery technology are not all that

    different from each other. Further, 99 times

    out of 100, you're putting an airplane away

    with a fully charged battery. Ideally, the

    battery in your airplane NEVER gets a deep

    discharge cycle and will last a very long

    time.



   Bob . . .

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum